Appendix 1. Complex and Fact

a ‘fact’ is an accepted – for whatever reason – proposal

as to ‘act’ –

‘It is natural to want to use the word ‘act’ so that it only corresponds to a true proposition’

a ‘true’ proposition – is the proposition you give your assent to – a false one – you dissent from

any assent or dissent – is open to question – open to doubt –  is uncertain

‘‘That was a noble act’ must have a sense even if I am mistaken in thinking that what I call an act occurred’?

the ‘sense’ of any proposal – any proposition is uncertain –

whether the proposed act occurred or not – is open to question – open to doubt –

what we deal with here is not correct propositions or mistaken propositions – but rather uncertain propositions

if by ‘mistake’ you mean – ‘a new certainty’ –

there are no mistakes –

a so called ‘mistake’ – is open to question – open to doubt – is uncertain – is an uncertainty

if I say I have made a mistake – what I am saying is that I have withdrawn – for whatever reason – my assent –  to a proposition –

however my withdrawal of assent – is just as open to question – open to doubt – as the original assent

it is not a bad idea to see propositions as tools –

you pick one up – put it down – pick another one up –

you use whatever is at hand to get to wherever you have in mind

and that – what you have in mind – like the propositions you use – is open to question

this idea of certainty – of certain propositions – of certain methods – of certain goals – bears no relation to reality

certainty is just a useless authoritarian myth – that has done more harm than good –

we don’t need to live in delusional state –

there is the fresh logic – of uncertainty – of possibility

breathe in

a ‘complex’ – is a description – a way of describing – certain propositions

and this – ‘the complex description’ – has its uses –

however the same proposal i.e. ‘flower’ – ‘house’ – ‘constellation’ – can be described as a simple

the issue is how the proposal is to be used

you might ask what is the origin of description?

any answer to this question – and there can be any number of answers – any number of proposals will be like the answer to any question –

open to question – to doubt – uncertain –

we do what we do – and what we do – in every sense of the word – is open to question

to say that a red circle is composed of redness and circularity –

is effectively – to say nothing – to add nothing to the description ‘a red circle’

or perhaps it is meant as a nonsense statement –

which under the right circumstances – might get a laugh –

or perhaps point one to irrelevant verbiage – of philosophers perhaps?

and there might be a point to that –

it is all a question of context – and who and what rules the roost – when it comes to what ‘can’ be said –

here I am pointing not to the significance of logic – but rather the ‘fact’ – if I can use that term – of rhetoric –

that is – what goes for ‘acceptable’ –

the logic of it is that whatever is proposed – is open to question – open to doubt

the rhetoric of it is that – certain proposals – for whatever reason – are dominant –

and hold sway –

to say ‘the fact obtains’ is to say that you endorse the proposition in question

to get right to it –

‘fact’ – is logically speaking – an unnecessary concept –

we can do without it quite easily

really it’s a piece of rhetoric – and as with all rhetoric – logically unnecessary

you give your assent to a proposition – or you dissent from it –

that is all that is necessary

when enough people give their assent – they christen the proposition – a ‘fact’

that is neither here nor there

the proposition with or without this honorific – is open to question – to doubt – is uncertain

‘A chain, too, is composed of its links, not of these and their spatial relations.

The fact that these links are so concatenated, isn’t ‘composed’ of anything at all.

The root of these muddle is the confusing use of the word ‘object’?’

‘object’ is – if you like a meta-description –

which is to say it functions as a logical place for further description

that further description will be a question of use

there is only confusion if you don’t get that ‘object’ – does not have a fixed sense –

a definite meaning

‘The part is smaller than the whole: applied to fact and component par  (constituent), that would yield an absurdity’?

the part is smaller than the whole?

if what is proposed – is not described – or seen in terms of the ‘part and whole’ description –

then that description – will be out of place

the ‘fact’ is a rhetorical devise – the absurdity is to think of it has having any logical significance

‘The schema: thing-property. We say that actions have properties, like swiftness, or goodness’

yes – ‘we say’ – we propose –

the thing-property schema – is a proposed explanation – in this case – of action

any proposal has its place –

and any proposal is open to question – to doubt – is uncertain

© greg t. charlton. 2015.